SallyScot

This is my talk page. Feel free to add any pertinent points. Please bear in mind however that my logging into Wikipedia can be intermittent, especially in the summer months, in which case it may take some time before I get round to reply.

Salvia divinorum spam

hiya. first, thanks for keeping an eye on the salvia article. second--keep an eye on yazazen, who hit that today with a link here:justsayonce.g2gm.com/, and on ayahausca, s/he added justsayonce.g2gm.com/whats_new.html. on ayahuasca they used an anon ip, 71.113.218.142. This is getting kinda out of hand . . .

when people spam an article, its also a good idea to drop a warning on their page so they know what they're doing and so repeat offenders are more easily recognized. a list of all template message can be found here.

I really have very little patience for people selling ayahuasca pills and advertising salvia as a great legal high. So if you spot these links again, drop me a note and i'll block the spammer.

cheers

--heah 03:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

hiya- i blocked 65.x.x.x for a month, and the other ip will be blocked for a month as well whenever he does it again. --heah 06:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Salvia divinorum - Header levels

Please see the bottom of Talk:Salvia divinorum. Thanks. --Burstroc 00:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Salvia divinorum

Please stop doing what you are doing to it. Wikipedia is not censored, and from the sound of it, the quote is a bit biased. If you want to do what you are doing, discuss it on the talk page of the article first and get a majority consensus. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

I agree with the previous post by Nwwaew, and would also like to note that this is the third time you've reposted this content within the last 24 hours. Per WP:3RR you may be blocked if you continue. Your contributions to Salvia divinorum are valuable - and surely there has got to be something about Rep. Paul Ray you can post that's verifiable. Please stop it with the persistent reposting of this nonsense chat-board quote. Reswobslc 17:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

It's unclear what's meant by Nwwaew's comment "Wikipedia is not censored". I added the following quote from House Representative Paul Ray...

"What I am doing is not to protect the morons that use drugs, it is to protect the public from morons that use drugs"

(added to what's now the Legal status of Salvia divinorum article with regard to his proposal to ban Salvia divinorum in the State of Utah)

Nwwaew removes this, i.e. censors it (literally two minutes after its re-inclusion), then comments "Wikipedia is not censored".

And as to "the quote is a bit biased": - Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (NPOV) does not mean that we may only include reference to other views that we editorially assess as being in themselves balanced and unbiased. In fact, the policy states - "all significant published points of view are to be presented" and "Readers are left to form their own opinions". Neutral point of view is "not the absence or elimination of viewpoints".

I'm always prepared to engage in reasonable discussion (I'm not saying the quote's inclusion isn't debatable), but, please, try to make points which could be clearly considered as actually being relevant.

As to Reswobslc's issuing of a 3RR warning: - If my edits to the article are properly treated as rewordings, attempts to move things on, noting their supporting talk page entries and invitations to further discussion, then the 3RR is clearly inappropriate (and, if anything, Reswobslc is more the 3RR offender).

I suggest some misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy here - see Talk:Legal status of Salvia divinorum for further discussion.

--SallyScot 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I hate barnstars, but I am impressed by your untiring work to Salvia divinorum, to the point that I check your work to find out what's new on SD in my state before I bother to check the news. Reswobslc 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, many thanks. --SallyScot 00:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Media stories link

I think your list of media stories is just fine, and are not only not excessive, but highly relevant. They are essentially references for each of the claims made for each individual state, and so they're almost mandatory. I wouldn't worry about disclaiming the quantity of links you have. The more the better. In fact it would probably make them more valuable to include the US state for each one (for the US) so that it mimics the US state list (whether done with a heading, or simply perhaps the name of the state as the first word of each link, as in...

• Utah, Duane Cardall, KSL (link)...

-Reswobslc 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks. I've followed the format given for an article in the Harvard referencing section of course, but I guess we could tweak that in this case if it was felt to be useful. Personally, I'd like to keep them in descending date order, but perhaps the format for US entries could ensure inclusion of State without too much change at all e.g.

• Sanchick, Myra. "Salvia: The New Pot", Fox6News WITI-TV, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2007-02-14.

There may also be a case for <div class="references-small"> e.g.

• Sanchick, Myra. "Salvia: Underground Drug Getting Attention", Fox6News WITI-TV, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2007-02-15.
• Sanchick, Myra. "Salvia: The New Pot", Fox6News WITI-TV, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2007-02-14.

I'd quite like to keep some kind of disclaimer as well to be honest, just to clarify. Yes, the stories need to be referred to as they're part of the overall Salvia phenomena, but I like to clearly ensure they're not bestowed with undue credibility. I do take your point though, so I'll maybe think some more about that before we get into further discussion.

--SallyScot 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Web forums

In general, links to discussion forums are considered inappropriate for Wikipedia articles. That line in WP:EL makes an exception for forums that are themselves the subject of the article. For example, the article about the web forum YTMND could have a link to the YTMND. So I think the links I removed should probably go, but I won't revert. Deli nk 19:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---

OK thanks. I misread what it was saying as "shares the same subject", but scanning it again I can see your interpretation is strictly correct. So in that case I'd maybe argue more generally for exception, e.g. along WP:IAR lines or some such. The forums are part of the overall Salvia phenomena, worthy of inclusion on that basis perhaps.

--SallyScot 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

LSD

FYI, i just added a semi protect to the LSD article that expires in a month. Lets see how that helps. David D. (Talk) 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've started a discussion topic on the Wikipedia:Protection_policy talk page you might be interested in. Cheers, --SallyScot (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I agree with your idea and another one that might be of interest is the article cloning. Every time the semi protect expires the IP vandalism starts right where it left off. You can probably identifiy the period where it is semiprotected from the edit history. I predict the exact same pattern will emerge for LSD. There are some articles that really do need long term semi protection. As volunteers we should not be wasting our time reverting juvenile vandalism. David D. (Talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for advice

Your answer to my question at Referencing different pages in the same book? was useful. I thought I had to do something like that but because I wasn't so sure I didn't want to try and then get it wrong. Although one of my refs. had no year of publication anywhere on it, I think it worked out. If you have a minute can you check the citations in the history section of the Brisbane River to see if I did it correctly? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi. I think your solution for Citations and References is basically fine. You've resolved the main issue, which would otherwise be unnecessarily repeating the full details such as title and publisher for example for references to McLeod and Longhurst.

Actually, I think the help advice on the Citing sources project page could still do with a bit more work to make it clearer (it's on my "to do" list).

What I did notice about your solution though was that it was kind of a mixture of two inline citation methods, namely Footnote referencing, and Short footnote citations with full references.

What you've got works well enough, but you might want to consider making some of the remaining long citations that you've got in the Citations section into short citations (e.g. Young 1990, Ersikine 1990, O’Brien et al 2001, Johnstone 1995) and then including their full references in the References section instead, even though (with the exception of Young 1990) these don't have multiple citations to different pages.

--SallyScot (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Query

Could you say what your main account is, please, by e-mail if you prefer? I'm not keen on seeing someone in a protracted revert on a guideline who may have tried to do the same thing before, under a different name. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please say what your main account is. You're continuing to revert on tiny little points in what looks like an effort to stir up trouble. Either quit it, or come clean about who you are. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Perhaps you missed my refutation of sock-puppetry on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources.

In addition, I can assure you that I believe in the merit of my edits. I'm an attention to detail type person. I'm sorry if that comes across as being overly fussy, but I'd appreciate it if you could assume good faith a bit more and take my edits, even the apparently trifling ones, more seriously. From my perspective some of your reverts seem unduly dismissive.

--SallyScot (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation method or technique versus style or format

Hi Dreadstar,

Re. your edit summary Citing sources 22:38, 30 January 2008 (Find consensus for this change, no edit warring)

Can you explain what you mean by consensus exactly?

In the interest of the 'Citing sources' project page's stability, and in order to avoid edit warring, I suggested this change in discussion three days prior to implementing it, clearly indicating my intent to do so if there were no counterarguments forthcoming.

I also cited summarised feedback in general support on the Citing sources talk page when it came to posting the edit on the project page.

If you disagree with the edit then I think the onus is on you to at least try to explain why.

The terms 'citation style' and 'citation format' are confusing when applied to the issue of usage or non-usage of citation templates. If you Google search the term "citation formats" for example [1] you get pages such as academic guides from universities and other educational institutions telling you about the different formats such as MLA, APA, Chicago, Turabian, AMA, etc. - e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Bear in mind also that my latest edit was not the 'citation technique' version that SlimVirgin had objected to, so consternation about edit warring is not really applicable on that count either.

SlimVirgin had said "To call a template a "technique" is strange writing. It is a style or a format or a method, perhaps, but "technique" is just odd." Now personally I don't consider that a constructive criticism at all. It's certainly not a substantiated argument. It's just POV pronouncements like "strange writing" and ""technique" is just odd", not backed up by any supporting evidence, actual facts, or anything like.

Dictionary definitions of 'technique' include - "method of performance; way of accomplishing" and the application of "procedures or methods so as to effect a desired result." So, in the context of citation templates, the connotation of 'technique' as in 'tools and techniques' is clearly a better term than either 'citation format' or 'citation style'.

I happen to think ‘citation technique’ is better than ‘citation method’. But even so, even so, I changed 'technique' to 'method' in the spirit of compromise and in the interests of working to a consensus. Slim's post had said "a method, perhaps" after all.

If editors such as SlimVirgin do not deign to discuss further, no other counterarguments are forthcoming, and other feedback has so far been in support of the change, then it's otherwise difficult for me to understand the issues with subsequent posting to the project page in any terms approaching reasonably equitable rules of engagement.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Cheers, --SallyScot (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

above message copied out from User_talk:Dreadstar/Archive06#Citation_method_or_technique_versus_style_or_format - no reply was forthcoming

Citation templates

In reply to your question, I think vertical templates are the worst of all, because, unlike Chinese, the English language does not work vertically, so I find it highly unintuitive to see references scripted vertically. And you lose the whole sense of the rhythm and length of a paragraph. But your example of non-templating doesn't entirely please me, because I am not a great fan of the refname style either. Like the templates, the refname cites are difficult to combine. They create the same problem of inflexibility, and I use them only for small page ranges, always filling them out fully to forestall orphaning. In short, I don't like tricksy mechanisms.

For an idea of the styles I prefer, please check out Robert Peake the Elder (which I placed at FAC yesterday). You will see that I like to interweave informational notes with citations, in a number of permutations (a much greater number than the templates we have available could manage) based on the many listed in the Chicago Manual of Style and Turabian. qp10qp (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

SallyScot, you have my sympathies for your efforts in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. I'm a C programmer; in my line of work, wordiness in comments and clarity of code presentation is valuable, so maybe that's why I prefer using templates such as {{cite web}} in the vertical style, over all other citation alternatives; it structures the reference elements and clearly separates them from the text. Plus, the use of citation templates codifies information in a way that might be more machine-searchable in the future. While recently editing Minneapolis, Minnesota I changed two things:

1. I broke up references of the form
   <ref>{{cite web}} and {{cite web}} and {{cite web}}</ref>
   into separate references of the form
   <ref>{{cite web}}</ref><ref>{{cite web}}</ref><ref>{{cite web}}</ref>
   since that seemed to be more in the style of how most references are done. Otherwise, the cites all run together in the reference.
2. I changed {{cite web}} and other cites from the horizontal to the vertical format. That just seems easier to edit for me, and I thought most people would agree.

I was promptly reverted by susanlesch (talk · contribs · count) who said I should first ask consensus on the article talk page before changing citation style. Well, okay. But when looking for a standard to bolster my argument, I found Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and now see what a contentious topic I wandered into.

I've followed discussions before, and don't see how anything ever gets resolved once opposing points of view are introduced, even when Support / Oppose votes are taken. If consensus is the name of the game, then it seems a decision gets made only when one side gets sufficiently tired or frustrated to give up and walk away. Thanks for keeping at it, and I'm glad you found the support of a senior editor. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bugzilla bug 12796

Hi SallyScott. I responded on my talk page. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Salvia feedback

I think your article on Salvia is excellent. I am a librarian and am planning to use it as an example on how to evaluate web pages when I teach a class on how to find informaiton on drug abuse. I am curious. Do you have a scientific background? You cite excellent references? What led you to write the article.

Thanks, Natalie

Natalie kupferberg (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Natalie

Thanks for the feedback Natalie . I can't take all the credit for the Salvia divinorum article, but I was one of the editors particularly concerned about ensuring well-sourced references for its content. I'm a Wikipedia enthusiast for sure, but the citation of good references is an area sadly lacking in far too many articles I have to say. I'm not a research scientist by profession, but I do appreciate its philosophy and method, basically the demand for evidence, for which many of our politicians and lawmakers seem unfortunately quite regardless. --SallyScot (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

compliment on salvia page from Pharmacy Professor

As I said I used your page on Salvia for a class I did on evaluating web sources and the pharmacy professor who taught the class or "Drug Abuse" said this was one of the best pieces on Salvia he had seen. He read all twenty pages and could not believe it was written by a non-scientist. Keep up the good work. Natalie (a pharmacy librarian)

Natalie kupferberg (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Natalie Kupferberg

A new survey on the use of Salvia among college students just came out. You may want to add the information from this article to your salivia piece. Lange JE, Reed MB, Croff JM, Clapp JD.

College student use of Salvia divinorum. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008 Apr 1;94(1-3):263-6. Epub 2008 Jan 14.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18093751?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

If you e-mail me (kupferberg.1@osu.edu) I can send you a copy of the article.

Thanks, Natalie

Natalie kupferberg (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Natalie Kupferberg

Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods

Saw your edit to subject page. I infer that I probably made a mess with my immediately-preceeding edit to add a subsection, and that you cleaned up my mess. Thanks. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. No problem Bill. Good to have the Harvnb/Citation example included anyway. --SallyScot (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Square links around uncertain publishing dates

Actually, this is the proper scientific way to do it, so please rv. For examples of use, see e.g. Nomenclator Zoologicus, Haaramo (2008) or Savela (2008). For case examples where such treatment is necessary, see e.g. the citational notes at Zoonomen. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There isn't yet Wikipedia precedent that I'm aware of, and there seems to be clash with pre-existing advice re their use to indicate long ago original publication dates with author-date references. If you want to argue for their introduction I suggest raising it on relevant talk page, but in any case I don't think the best place for such inclusion is in advice about embedded links. Not having a publication date, not even having a remote idea about an approximate one, isn't really an argument for using embedded links. The wording I removed suggested making a full citation (by implication e.g. using <ref> tags) was something to do (by implication) only if author, place of publication, and date of publishing and/or last revision can be determined. That sends the wrong signal as you can use <ref> tags in preference to embedded links with whatever limited information you have. --SallyScot (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OIC. I thought we actually had it already in the ref formatting guidelines.

But "author-date references" is exactly the problem here, for these sources do not have exactly determinable dates.

There may be some precedent in the IUCN Redlist articles that Polbot created. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Uninvited comment: If I understand this correctly, it's easy to hook undated author-date refs to a cite as, for example, (Smith). If there are multiple cites associated with an author: (Smith-1), (Smith-2), or (invisibly linking to the individually-intended cite) (Smith), (Smith). Square brackets are a bit messier in the wikitext (e.g., [Smith], [Smith-1], [Smith-2], [Smith], [Smith]), but the messiness easily be hidden inside of a template. These examples variously hook to the following cites:

• Smith, An undated paper by Smith
• Smith-1, Another undated paper by Smith{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• Smith-2, Yet another undated paper by Smith{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiat Currency

If there is a barnstar for heroic copyediting in the face of adversity, consider youirself duly awarded! Great work on an article confounded by political dogma. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, much appreciated. The subject is not an area I know a great deal about, but even so, it looks like some editors have been forgetting some pretty basic Wikipedia fundamentals and not citing adequate sources. --SallyScot (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum FAC

Just a note, it appears that an editor has drive-by nominated Salvia divinorum for FAC (WP:FAC/Salvia divinorum). The nomination doesn't appear to have been transcluded, so I've notified the FA delegate User talk:SandyGeorgia#Salvia divinorum FAC so that she can hopefully handle this presuming you don't want to nominate the article at this time. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn, see User talk:CNash#Salvia divinorum FAC withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this. --SallyScot (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Dead links

Hi Sally, On my computer http://www.webcitation.org didn't work yesterday, just before I added the "dead link" tag today or again when I checked it before saving this post. If it's working for you, though I must have a problem with my machine.

Regards, Dinoceras (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dinoceras, Hmmm curious. Webcite links should be v. reliable I would've thought. You could maybe try casting around on Citing sources project talk page or Website article's talk page to see if anyone else is having a problem. --SallyScot (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

Hey, SallyScott. I recall from not too long ago that you put together a very nice sub-page under WP:CITE with info on this. Now I see that WP:CITESHORT doesn't mention that and doesn't contain anywhere near the information which used to be presented on that sub-page. What happened? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bill. There's a link to subpage Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Wikilinks_to_full_references in "Shortened footnotes" section. But I think you may be referring to subpage Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Example_edits_for_different_methods, which is now only referred to in the "See also" section.

There's a case for referring to /Example edits for different methods in WP:CITE's body text, both in the "Shortened footnotes" section and in the "Citation templates and tools" section, as the idea was not only to further illustrate the different wikilinking methods, but also to allow for comparison of footnote references using citation templates and footnote references written freehand.

I think I'll add such references back in on that basis then. Cheers. --SallyScot (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation code anomaly

Hi, I'm turning to you as someone with an interest and hopefully some expertise in citation codes. Please check out this apparent problem and let's know if you have the answer. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh?? It looks to me as if SallyScott fixed the problem and explained the fix. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For which explanation I'm most grateful. I think Sillyfolkboy did the fix. Bjenks (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum

Hi SallyScot, as you've surely noticed, I'm trying to bring the botany and taxonomy aspects of the article up to the level of other plant and Salvia articles, in both detail and style. There were some things that were in error, according to reliable sources and the leading S. divinorum botanists. I think this will help add yet more credibility to the rest of the article, which is very well done. It's refreshing to see the deeper aspects of the plant's background presented to people who come to the article. One hopes that it will help users to get more out of their experience, and to use it with more wisdom. Feel free to let me know if I am missing some angle, as you seem to have a lot of S. divinorum sources and resources available. (P.S. I couldn't get the footnote link for the Marushia article to work - I found another version of it online). First Light (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi First Light, I've been away for the most part while you've been doing recent edits, but my first impressions from initial scan through is that they've been worthwhile additions. When I've time I'll go through in more detail, read up some more, see what I can learn and if there's anything else to add. In the meantime I note that some newly added references aren't in the article's preferred "Shortened footnotes" style. I have to say it took me a while to get used to this too - the citation style wasn't first introduced to the article by myself - but, after getting my head around it, I have grown to to quite like it. Shortened footnotes maybe require a bit more attention to detail than ordinary footnotes - they're a bit different in any case, but I think there are some genuine advantages with them that make the style worth persevering with. Don't worry too much about it though; it's not a serious issue and I'll be happy to sort the citation formats myself soon enough. Cheers, --SallyScot (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've been working at the different footnotes approach. My later edits have been conforming, I think, except perhaps for adding the page/chapter title to each of the Reisfield references. At first I thought it was all a device to discourage new editors :-) . Now I see the sense in it. I'm going to chime in against splitting the article, which is being suggested on the talk page. First Light (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite_body.php modified to allow ref bodies to be declared outside of article prose

You and I have touched on this in previous discussions. In view of that, I thought that you might be interested in my comments here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Belated apologies for no comment yet on this Bill. I've not been logging on to Wikipedia so much during the summer months recently. --SallyScot (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Brown

Please use the talkpage to gain consensus for your changes. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

WP:BB --SallyScot (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes you were bold in adding the new material but you edited to your favoured position whilst we were involved in discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You perhaps could use reading the WP:BRD article, be bold and add material..if you get reverted you move to discussion. Tomorrow I will look at balancing your addition with the correct weight, and I will appreciate it if you discuss or look for support for you favoured position on the talkpage or on a noticeboard. I actually thought about removing the sectioon altogether but thought, no i'll balance it a bit and leave it in. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a different understanding. It seems you didn't like the balance of my initial edit and so you reworded it. That's fine. - No issue with that in principle. - Except there were some issues with what you actually put as I explained on the talk page. I attempted to address these with a subsequent edit. I included a direct quote from Sir Michael Rawlins aiming to resolve. I did not revert your edit. --SallyScot (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Salvia Painting MPM.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Salvia Painting MPM.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Mark P Maxwell (mark@mpm7.com) is the author of the picture and has granted permission for its use. In fact it was Mark himself who originally uploaded it (a previously deleted version), as well as already adding his express permission with an edit to the current version. Anyway, I've forwarded email correspondence between myself and Mark to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org + permissions-en@wikimedia.org in the hope that it will help. I have to say though that it is quite frustrating to have recurring issues being raised over permissions here. The whole image upload process seems to be rather overcomplicated, officious, and more onerous than it perhaps ought to be.

--SallyScot (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nice People Take Drugs London Bus.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nice People Take Drugs London Bus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)